HARI KRISHNA PATEL AND ANR.versusSTATE OF A.P. AND ANR.

                 HARI KRISHNA PATEL AND ANR.                                  A
                                    v.
                      STATE OF A.P. AND ANR.
 •
                         NOVEMBER 28, 1995

           [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]                              B

       Suit for declaration of Title-No documentary evidence in support of
claim-Revenue record showing Government asserted its title-Plaintiffs'
predecessor acknowledgi1.ig Government title-Penalty imposed on plaintiffs'
predecessor for unauthorised occupancy-Suit filed within 13 years-Held        c
plaintiffs' title was not peifected by prescription.

      A suit filed by the appellants for declaration of title in respect of suit
property and for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from
interfering with appellants possession was decreed by the Trial Court. The
appellants' claim that the property was purchased from one k was not D
supported by any documentary evidence. The High Court relied upon the
entries in the Revenue Records and found that (i) Government had as-
serted its title to the land and plaintiffs' predecessor acknowledged the
same; and (ii) penalty was collected from K and plaintiffs' predecessor
being an unauthorised occupier. Accordingly, the High Court reversed the E
decree of the Trial Court

      In appeal to this Court on the question whether the appellants have
perfected their title by prescription;

      Dismissing the appeal, this Court                                       F
      HELD : The findings of the High Court do not warrant interference.
Imposition of penalty and payment by appellants' father and K amount to
accepting the title of the Government. From the year 1932 to 1963, there
was no evidence as to the nature of the possession and enJoyment by the
appellants' predecessor. Therefore, a presumption arises that the same G
state of things continued from 1932 to 1963. Same state of things having
continued from 1932 to 1963, the Government asserted its title and the
appellants' predecessor acknowledged the same. The suit having been filed
within 13 years, the appellants had not perfected their title by prescription
as against the Government. [763-D-F]                                          H
                                    761
    762                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R ..

A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 206 of
    1986.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 16.7.85 of the AP. High Court
    in C.C.C.A Nos. 142 and 152 of 1978.                              •

B           A Subba Rao for the Appellants.

          Altaf Ahmed, ASG, A Raghuvir, G. Prabhakar and B. Parthasarthy
    for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :
c
          The appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree
    dated July 16, 1985 made by the High Court of AP. in C.C.C.A. Nos. 142
    and 152 of 1978. The appellants laid the suit for declaration of the title in
    respect of Survey No. 6 of Musheerabad village, Hyderabad, AP. ad-
    measuring 12.958 sq. mtrs. and for perpetual injunction restraining the
D   respondents from interfering with the appellants' possession over the suit
    land and for costs of the suit. The trial court though decreed the suit on
    June 14, 1976, on appeal the High Court reversed the decree and dismissed
    the suit. Thus this appeal by special leave.

E         The only question raised in this case is whether th~ appellants had
    perfected title by prescription. Though the appellants had sought declara-
    tion of title, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, the appellants had
    not produced any documentary evidence except Ex. A-1 sale deed dated
    August 21, 1968 executed by his father and that, therefore, it did not
    conclude the matter. The claim was that the property was purchased from
F   one Kulsum Bi. No documentary evidence was produced in proof thereof.
    Under these circumstances, there is no proof of title having been passed
    from J(ulsuni Bi to the father to the appellants.

        The only question is whether the appellants have perfected title by
  prescription. The High Court has decided the period of prescription prior
G to 1932 to 1963 and from 1963 to 1970 and thereafter. The evidence in
  support thereof was negatived by the High Court relying upon entries in
  the revenue record. Ex. A-13 is relevant for the period from 1928 to 1932.
  In column 10, the account-holder is described as 'Government' and in
  column 12 the name of the possessor is described as "Kulsum Bi, w/o
H Ahmed, possessor Mizar Mehdi Khan-Kandi Bala Kistaiah and Lax-
                           H.K.PATELv. STATE                           763

minarayana". In column 25 it was stated that "In no. 13, old number 5 on A
account of unauthorisedly making bricks, the land is being rendered uncul-
tivable during the previous year on account of the land being dry penalty
was imposed". In column 26, it has stated that "In No. 12 and 13, as per
the 8 monthly statements, there are brick-kilns and bricks are being made.
The Land pertaining to No. 13 is included in the boundaries of Commerce B
and Industries Department but the same has not been delivered so far". In
column 27 it was stated that "On account of setting up brick kiln in the
boundaries of No. 13, unauthorisedly, breaches are caused in land remain-
ing land follow". Column 30 clearly mentioned that the Government was
the owner of the land and it was laying penalty upon Kulsum Bi and the
penalty was being collected. In Ex.A-1, similarly mentioned is the name of C
the appellant's father, viz., Laxminarayan being the unauthorised occupier
and making bricks kiln, penalty was imposed on him. It would clearly
conclude that Government has been asserting its title to the land. Imposi-
tion of penalty and payment by Laxminarayan, appellant's father and
Kulsum Bi amounts to accepting the title of the Government. Their pos- D
session is permissive possession. Thereby the appellants had acknowledged
the title of the Government. From the year 1932 to 1963, there was no
evidence a1> to the nature of the possession and enjoyment by the
appellant's predecessor. Therefore, a presumption arises and it is a settled
law that the same state of things continued from 1932 and would continue
to be of the same state of affairs till 1963. The presumption could, there- E
fore, be drawn both backward and forward of the continuance of the same
state of affairs. Once such a presumption has been drawn, same state of
things having continued from 1932 to 1963, the Government asserted its
title and the appellant's predecessors have acknowledged the title of the
lands from 1932 till 1963. Admittedly, the suit having been filed in 1975, F
i.e., within 13 years, the appellants had not perfected the title by prescrip-
 tion as against the Government. The findings of the High Court, therefore,
 do not warrant our interference.

         The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.                                                                        G
T.N.A.                                                   Appeal dismissed.